W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2013

Re: [whatwg] Alignment of empty buttons

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1311250320011.27139@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/24/13 8:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > On 11/22/13 9:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > Sure, <option>s are replaced elements either.
> > > 
> > > You mean aren't?
> > 
> > Right. They have nothing to do with CSS.
> 
> In Gecko they do: they're just blocks.
> 
> > They aren't replaced elements, by the CSS definition in any UA, as far 
> > as I can tell.
> 
> Some UAs render a <div> inside an <option> as specified by CSS.

(That's non-conforming, as far as I can tell, for what it's worth. The 
HTML spec says you're supposed to render elements according to what they 
represent, and <option> elements represent an option in a select, with a 
label, value, etc; children elements have no bearing on all this.)


> Some do not. How are they not replaced elements in the latter?

I don't know what it would mean for them to be replaced elements. The 
<select> is a replaced element, but its contents have no bearing on the 
CSS spec at all.

But this doesn't seem like a productive avenue of debate, since we've 
already agreed that the term we're debating is defined incorrectly anyway.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 03:28:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:14 UTC